I really like the osgi concept of services. So I think we could simply
register services for e.g. the bindings and transports in osgi.
For non osgi environments we could create a simple service registry that
serves the same purpose. Camel has the concept of a registry that can be
implemented using spring or without spring. That probably serves pretty
much the same purpose. So perhaps we could create something like this.
The nice thing about osgi services is that you don´t need a special
concept like an extensionmanagerbus. You simply register services that
implement for example
an interface ConduitInitiator and then you can simply lookup all of
these or even have properties to refine a search.
Any thoughts about that?
Thanks
Christian
Am 29.09.2010 23:32, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
Just to clarify (since I think I may have generated too much excitement around
this)... :-)
My thought are more around "fixing" the current ExtensionManagerBus to get all
the features working properly with the extension mechanism that is currently
in place. When that works, creating a new implementation of ExtensionManager
that would lookup in the OSGi registry the various extensions should be
relatively easy. Thus, it's not so much an "OSGIBus" as it is making the
ExtensionManagerBus something more usable, which would include in an OSGi
environment.
Longer term, we could then substitute the SpringBus stuff with a new
SpringExtensionManager or similar and pretty much get down to one bus, with a
couple of managers. It would hopefully simplify things a bit. We don't
really need 3 bus implementations. :-)
Make sense?
Dan
On Wednesday 29 September 2010 5:22:00 pm Adrian Trenaman wrote:
+1 for an osgibus!
----- Original Message -----
From: Johan Edstrom [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 01:19 PM
To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fun with the survey
+1 on an osgibus, that would be great.
On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
On 9/29/10 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday 27 September 2010 9:44:25 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
It looks like our close and personal relationship with Spring
continues to really inconvenience very few and serve the majority. I
wonder if we would want to invest energy in merely designing some
scheme to make Spring more removable to assist some volunteer in
working on it?
Well, this is something I keep thinking about quite a lot latetly.
There are several areas where we use Spring and expose spring to the
user:
1) Wiring our own bus together
2) Providing configuration and namespace handlers and such for the user
to more easily use CXF with spring
3) Using/abusing the spring aop stuff for things like transactions and
sessions scopes and such
4) JMS transport
I really don't want to touch on #4. Even the JMS guys say Spring JMS is
the way to go to get JMS done correctly.
For #3, we do provide some factories for some of the scopes and such,
but again, spring does much of that so much better.
Everything done for #2 there are good API's (that the spring things
call) and thus can be done programatically. If someone has a
different config mechanism, it's not hard to create a new one.
That really leaves #1. We DO provide a non-spring version of the bus
(The ExtensionBus stuff), but it has a bunch of limitations in what it
can pick up and wire together and such. Much of the SecPolicy stuff
won't work for example. This is something I was THINKING about
looking at more for 2.4, partially to make things much more OSGi
friendly where the various modules can be relatively independent
bundles that an "OSGIBus" could grab via tha OSGi registries and such.
Yea. Brain is noodling, but hasn't gotten very far yet.
+1 for the OSGiBus idea, I saw lots of customer issues about using a
wrong bus configurations in OSGi. We could do some work to make life
easier :)
Johan Edstrom
[email protected]
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
--
----
http://www.liquid-reality.de
